Bicycle number plates, insurance, tax etc

[Blue in Munich]

So who is paying to get a calibrated speedo fitted to every bike?

What's a cycle lane got to do with it? Personally I've never used a cycle lane.

Why does it have to be a calibrated speedometer?

 

[Oddsocks]

Er no it's classic understanding of the law. Its why electric bikes have a limiter where assistance cuts out above a certain speed because they are mechanically propelled when the motor is assisting.

Which is complete faff when you see vids on media platforms of people in the centre lane of the a2 approach Blackwell tunnel on an escooter doing 45mph, which was proved when the guy got along side him and then filmed his speed gauge in his van

 

[GB72]

I think that there is a bit too much hyperbole on both sides of this debate. Whether a cyclist can or cannot or does or does not break the speed limit is a red herring to me. The reason I thnk that it is a fine idea to identifiy and insure is that if an idiot, in the same way that a driver who is an idiot, breaks the law, causes damage or causes injury then there is a chance to identify and prosecute. With the amount of CCTV in urban environments, if a cyclist has number plate or similar (again, I believe that the cyclist and not the bike shoudl be registered) then there is a reasonable chance to be able to take some form of action. If that is backed up by third party insurance then there is a chance of a claim being made to recompense for injury or damage caused. The times that my car has been damaged by a cyclist has been in traffic queues when they have tried to get down the side when the gap is too small and damaged my paintwork. I clearly could not move to try and do anything but I could have easily got a number plate and put in an insurance claim.

The cost could be nominal, a matter of a few pounds a year to register. The cost of the insurance is slightly different but I do think that there needs to be some form of protection in place. Some have mentioned uninsured drivers with cloned number plates. Yes, this will always happen and it will with cycling as well but by that argument, becuase some break the law, the law should not exist.

I do not think that anything here is unfair, anti cyclist or anything else but if cycling is to remain as prevalent as it is or grow then it has to expect to be the subject to some legislation for the safety and protection of others.

 

[greenone]

OK, but you ignored all the other examples I gave and just chose to focus on that one.

Ok, I have never damaged a car when on a bike. Judging by the paint work on the doors of my car it seems most drivers are incapable of getting in and out of their cars without smashing their door into the car next to them in carparks. I've never go though a red light in my car or on a bike, I regularly see other people do it, the vast majority of them in cars. I've seen plenty of car drivers hit things and drive off. Anything else?

 

[greenone]

Which is complete faff when you see vids on media platforms of people in the centre lane of the a2 approach Blackwell tunnel on an escooter doing 45mph, which was proved when the guy got along side him and then filmed his speed gauge in his van

Is an escooter now a bike?

 

[greenone]

Why does it have to be a calibrated speedometer?

Because all Speedos fitted to vehicles used on the road have to have a type approval and be calibrated.

 

[Oddsocks]

Is an escooter now a bike?

According to the article I found online. they wanted to class ebikes and escooters in the same category as cyclists under their proposal.

So without your sarcastic tone, in their eyes , yes.

 

[Oddsocks]

Because all Speedos fitted to vehicles used on the road have to have a type approval and be calibrated.

Do car speedos get calibrated as part of the MOT? (Serious question.)

 

[Jimaroid]

With the amount of CCTV in urban environments, if a cyclist has number plate or similar (again, I believe that the cyclist and not the bike shoudl be registered) then there is a reasonable chance to be able to take some form of action.

I am not attacking your reasoned post and position on this but I wanted to emphasise this bit. What you’re asking for here is an identification and registration system of people to be used under surveillance.

I personally don’t mind that but many people do (but politics, sigh) and cyclists get targetted when there are clearly other agendas and issues involved. If ID and surveillance is the solution then do it FOR EVERYONE so that we can catch other criminals like muggers and kidnappers with the same ease.

Cycling is not the main issue but cyclists are made a target. I don’t think that’s right but I appreciate others don’t share that opinion.

 

[Oddsocks]

I think that there is a bit too much hyperbole on both sides of this debate. Whether a cyclist can or cannot or does or does not break the speed limit is a red herring to me. The reason I thnk that it is a fine idea to identifiy and insure is that if an idiot, in the same way that a driver who is an idiot, breaks the law, causes damage or causes injury then there is a chance to identify and prosecute. With the amount of CCTV in urban environments, if a cyclist has number plate or similar (again, I believe that the cyclist and not the bike shoudl be registered) then there is a reasonable chance to be able to take some form of action. If that is backed up by third party insurance then there is a chance of a claim being made to recompense for injury or damage caused. The times that my car has been damaged by a cyclist has been in traffic queues when they have tried to get down the side when the gap is too small and damaged my paintwork. I clearly could not move to try and do anything but I could have easily got a number plate and put in an insurance claim.

The cost could be nominal, a matter of a few pounds a year to register. The cost of the insurance is slightly different but I do think that there needs to be some form of protection in place. Some have mentioned uninsured drivers with cloned number plates. Yes, this will always happen and it will with cycling as well but by that argument, becuase some break the law, the law should not exist.

I do not think that anything here is unfair, anti cyclist or anything else but if cycling is to remain as prevalent as it is or grow then it has to expect to be the subject to some legislation for the safety and protection of others.

Be careful about posting anything logical…..

 

[Rooter]

Do car speedos get calibrated as part of the MOT? (Serious question.)

No, i think they are factory calibrated. But its pretty common knowledge they always used to be up to +/- 10% accurate!! I think these days they are way better, but watch get waze or google and compare the GPS speed Vs speedo in your car, it will be different.

 

[GB72]

I am not attacking your reasoned post and position on this but I wanted to emphasise this bit. What you’re asking for here is an identification and registration system of people to be used under surveillance.

I personally don’t mind that but many people do (but politics, sigh) and cyclists get targetted when there are clearly other agendas and issues involved. If ID and surveillance is the solution then do it FOR EVERYONE so that we can catch other criminals like muggers and kidnappers with the same ease.

Cycling is not the main issue but cyclists are made a target. I don’t think that’s right but I appreciate others don’t share that opinion.

To be totally upfront, I have no issue with ID cards in general. I think it is in Germany (could be wrong) where you are issued with number plate for life that you put on your car and, again, I actually think that is better than the current system.

That said, I do not think that registering the cyclist would be much more intrusive than current car registrations as I suspec that if you can access car ownership records at the DVLA through my number plate, you will get the same basic info (name, age, address, Date of Birth etc). The reason that I suggested regisering the cyclist is that I suspect that a cyclist is more likely to have or use more than one bike, change bikes or use someone else's bike at times but registering the person would mean there there would be no need for multiple registrations or to change details frequently. It was suggested on a practical level rather than an big brother one.

I fully agree that there are bigger issues than cycling but I also do not feel that the imposition of basic road legislation for cyclists is in any way a bad thing, especially compulsory insurance but measures like that have little impact if there is no way of identifying the person in question.

 

[Rooter]

To be totally upfront, I have no issue with ID cards in general. I think it is in Germany (could be wrong) where you are issued with number plate for life that you put on your car and, again, I actually think that is better than the current system.

That said, I do not think that registering the cyclist would be much more intrusive than current car registrations as I suspec that if you can access car ownership records at the DVLA through my number plate, you will get the same basic info (name, age, address, Date of Birth etc). The reason that I suggested regisering the cyclist is that I suspect that a cyclist is more likely to have or use more than one bike, change bikes or use someone else's bike at times but registering the person would mean there there would be no need for multiple registrations or to change details frequently. It was suggested on a practical level rather than an big brother one.

I fully agree that there are bigger issues than cycling but I also do not feel that the imposition of basic road legislation for cyclists is in any way a bad thing, especially compulsory insurance but measures like that have little impact if there is no way of identifying the person in question.

What about kids?

Why make one of the simplest, cheapest modes of transport complex?

This is pure spin from the gov and media. Why? who knows... cover the mess of whats going on in london with kids looting, lack of leadership, boris on holiday, tory leadership?

 

[Backache]

People cycling rather than using a car is a huge societal benefit.

It reduces pollution paticularly in built up areas benefitting everyone particularly those with respiratory illnesses.

It reduces our greenhouse gas emissions.

It reduces wear on roads
It hugely reduces traffic congestion
It reduces need for parking spaces
It is intrinsically less dangerous to others who share the road be they pedestrians, car users or fellow cyclists.

Any legislation that is likely to discourage cycling is in my view intrinsically a bad idea unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overwhelming need for it.
The number of cyclists causing damage to others has not as far as I'm aware ever been shown to be anything other than tiny.
Requiring registration/ insurance is likely to discourage some, be ignored by the worst users as already happens with cars and produce virtually no benefit to anyone.

 

[GB72]

What about kids?

Why make one of the simplest, cheapest modes of transport complex?

This is pure spin from the gov and media. Why? who knows... cover the mess of whats going on in london with kids looting, lack of leadership, boris on holiday, tory leadership?

Kids are quite simple, you are exempt until 16 then you register.

Why make it complex, it does not have to be, one onlne form and an insurance policy, not complicated.

Spin or not, I actually think that it has merit.

 

[Jimaroid]

I fully agree that there are bigger issues than cycling but I also do not feel that the imposition of basic road legislation for cyclists is in any way a bad thing, especially compulsory insurance but measures like that have little impact if there is no way of identifying the person in question.

Again I agree broadly and am also not anti ID cards. It comes back to my earlier point that it is the whole system that is flawed and in need in modernisation, my frustration and objection is not with the core issue of criminality and personal liability but that cyclists are singled out as a root cause.

I think cycling has many positive benefits to society and it should be as free as possible. But I also think that there is something rotten and completely out of date when we are still seeing things like “do you know who this man is?“ when a six year old girl gets assaulted as in yesterday’s/today’s news in Manchester. That to me is more important than a scratched car.

This thought of cycling registration is a massive distraction and if the government were seriously wanting to address the issue of identification and liability then it is a not about cyclists it’s about the whole population. But clearly they lack the balls to do that so they’re just going to attack cyclists because they’re easy targets.

Take cycling out of the discussion. Make crime the focus. That’s pretty much all I’d ask.

 

[GB72]

People cycling rather than using a car is a huge societal benefit.

It reduces pollution paticularly in built up areas benefitting everyone particularly those with respiratory illnesses.

It reduces our greenhouse gas emissions.

It reduces wear on roads
It hugely reduces traffic congestion
It reduces need for parking spaces
It is intrinsically less dangerous to others who share the road be they pedestrians, car users or fellow cyclists.

Any legislation that is likely to discourage cycling is in my view intrinsically a bad idea unless it can be demonstrated that there is an overwhelming need for it.
The number of cyclists causing damage to others has not as far as I'm aware ever been shown to be anything other than tiny.
Requiring registration/ insurance is likely to discourage some, be ignored by the worst users as already happens with cars and produce virtually no benefit to anyone.

You may have a point but actually the lack of statistics may actually be a symptom of the issue. The records may be minimal for cycling damage due to the lack of accountability or ability to make a claim. Could be either way but the lack of records of damange in itself is not proof that there is no need or legislatoin to make cyclists more identifiable or accountable which could, in itself, be the cause of the lack of records.

 

[Oddsocks]

What about kids?

Why make one of the simplest, cheapest modes of transport complex?

This is pure spin from the gov and media. Why? who knows... cover the mess of whats going on in london with kids looting, lack of leadership, boris on holiday, tory leadership?

I posted back on this before it went off track. Kids used to do a basic cycle training course in junior school, it could be no different where as they are the issued with a plate colour or registration number (depending on the gov route) which expires when they reach a certain age.

I do think at the very least it would’ve a good idea for busy towns (London/Birmingham/etc) where there is excessive traffic and pedestrianised areas and these are compulsory CRZ zones where you have to be registered and have a form of insurance. It would also aid monitoring anti social behaviour in city / town centres

 

[GB72]

Again I agree broadly and am also not anti ID cards. It comes back to my earlier point that it is the whole system that is flawed and in need in modernisation, my frustration and objection is not with the core issue of criminality and personal liability but that cyclists are singled out as a root cause.

I think cycling has many positive benefits to society and it should be as free as possible. But I also think that there is something rotten and completely out of date when we are still seeing things like “do you know who this man is?“ when a six year old girl gets assaulted as in yesterday’s/today’s news in Manchester. That to me is more important than a scratched car.

This thought of cycling registration is a massive distraction and if the government were seriously wanting to address the issue of identification and liability then it is a not about cyclists it’s about the whole population. But clearly they lack the balls to do that so they’re just going to attack cyclists because they’re easy targets.

Take cycling out of the discussion. Make crime the focus. That’s pretty much all I’d ask.

I am fully with you on much of that. This, however, was asking for comments on cycling and that is where I focused my comments trying, as best I can, to put together a cogent argument as to why I felt that legislation was necessary without slipping in to over emotional and often unproductive car vs bike debate (I live in rural Lincolnshire, we do not have many of either) . There is so much that needs to be addressed locally and globally and I am with you on so much of that but I was simply trying to put across a view with, hopefully, some thought out opinions that could be discussed.

 

[Backache]

You may have a point but actually the lack of statistics may actually be a symptom of the issue. The records may be minimal for cycling damage due to the lack of accountability or ability to make a claim. Could be either way but the lack of records of damange in itself is not proof that there is no need or legislatoin to make cyclists more identifiable or accountable which could, in itself, be the cause of the lack of records.

Possibly but you do not need to know someones identity to report an incident . I am not aware that anyone is suggesting there are a lot of unreported incidents involving cycles.

Anecdotally I know loads of people who have had scrapes when there cars have been parked from other cars that they have not been able to identify I know a few people who have had cars vandalised by unidentified people. I know no one who has had any damage caused by a cyclist that they have been aware of.
You would still have to idenitfy that it was a cycle for it to be useful.